Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
He said "some of", so idk why citing the good ones is the response.
A lot of marvel fights are blurry cgi messes.
Black Panther.
Thats the only "popular" Marvel movie that a definitively crap action sequence.
Everything else i named is super popular. Like, tent pole of the whole MCU popular (except Dr Strange, but i tossed that in just to illustrate that Marvel can do crazy CGI inventive action too)
Avengers, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War.....
For my part maybe 3 of the fights you mentioned were in any way memorable
Could that possibly be because you've predetermined yourself to not like the MCU stuff?
Which, again, is ok! I hate pickles!
But making claims that things are "generic/ crap/ or cookie cutter" when applied to the MCU is just....incorrect.
Marvel movies are pretty clearly made with a formula
All movies are made with a formula
I guess the similarities between Sorry to Bother You and Thor 2 are pretty striking when you think about it.
Still required a formula to make though.
This is really, profoundly, silly
Oh i'm very sorry. I shall differ to your evidently superior understanding of movie making.
Explain how Sorry to Bother You wasnt created using some type of template for story telling. Or lighting. Or Sound. Or editing. Or Acting. Or Advertising.
Often called "a formula"
Youve gone from saying that anyone claiming marvel movies are cookie cutter is wrong to arguing every movie is.
Disney isnt coy about having a template from which every mcu movie is made. Its why they hire the directors they do. Its why every movie score sounds the same. They know the levers to pull.
Point of order; Captain America's score sounds nothing like other Marvel scores. Alan Silverstri did some damn fine work on that movie.
As someone who loves his "classic" scores - Back to the Future, Predator, heck, Flight of the Navigator - it's been a real kick to see Silvestri get another big hit theme under his belt.
Predator is one of my all time favorite movie scores, I put it up there with Conan the Barbarian and Gladitor. The man has been making fantastic movie music for decades and, like you, I'm always excited when I see his name show up.
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
And likening enjoying them or discussing it is now akin to mental illness or uncontrollable compulsiveness for reasons so obviously that was meant not in the exact words used.
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of that quote was that no one has to defend the MCU. That criticisms of them are not a personal attack or just an internet hottake or hating something because it's mainstream or whatever else.
Which circles back to the entire point: People aren't criticizing the MCU because they are popular. They are criticizing them on what they see as their faults, as articulated in many posts in this thread already. Those criticisms aren't some contrarian internet hottake.
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
There are a lot of straw men being assaulted on both sides of this argument.
I find myself wishing Scorsese tweets just didn’t find their way into these threads and restart these same arguments
If we can just get like Tarantino to tweet that he liked Endgame can we just call it even and drop it?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+10
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of that quote was that no one has to defend the MCU. That criticisms of them are not a personal attack or just an internet hottake or hating something because it's mainstream or whatever else.
Which circles back to the entire point: People aren't criticizing the MCU because they are popular. They are criticizing them on what they see as their faults, as articulated in many posts in this thread already. Those criticisms aren't some contrarian internet hottake.
And people disagree with those criticisms, which is the point of discussion. No one has to, but why should only one opinion be heard? Are we not allowed to say we like a film because you're tired of them?
Only one side is calling the other "pathological" here. Which is kind of what I'm saying, since pathological means we're absolutely unable to control our actions and just don't know any better.
That and this little gem:
"So yeah, a bunch of Producers and Accountants managed a great feat with the MCU, and made an incredibly popular entretainment product fit for mass consumption. Nothing more, and nothing less."
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of that quote was that no one has to defend the MCU. That criticisms of them are not a personal attack or just an internet hottake or hating something because it's mainstream or whatever else.
Which circles back to the entire point: People aren't criticizing the MCU because they are popular. They are criticizing them on what they see as their faults, as articulated in many posts in this thread already. Those criticisms aren't some contrarian internet hottake.
And people disagree with those criticisms, which is the point of discussion.
Only one side is calling the other "pathological" here. Which is kind of what I'm saying, since pathological means we're absolutely unable to control our actions and just don't know any better.
Except that's not the discussion because you claimed those people's argument was "I don't like it because other people do". You can't have a discussion if you are claiming the other side only disagrees with you because they hate popular things and not because of all the reasons they actually gave.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of that quote was that no one has to defend the MCU. That criticisms of them are not a personal attack or just an internet hottake or hating something because it's mainstream or whatever else.
Which circles back to the entire point: People aren't criticizing the MCU because they are popular. They are criticizing them on what they see as their faults, as articulated in many posts in this thread already. Those criticisms aren't some contrarian internet hottake.
And people disagree with those criticisms, which is the point of discussion.
Only one side is calling the other "pathological" here. Which is kind of what I'm saying, since pathological means we're absolutely unable to control our actions and just don't know any better.
Except that's not the discussion because you claimed those people's argument was "I don't like it because other people do". You can't have a discussion if you are claiming the other side only disagrees with you because they hate popular things and not because of all the reasons they actually gave.
I get all of the arguments about the Deplorable State of Cinema Today, and in an academic sense, I more or less agree. However, on a personal level:
I really like Marvel movies. They're a lot of fun, and the MCU is neat.
Star Wars movies, and the property in general, is in much better shape now than it was 20 years ago.
Pixar and Disney are making consistently good animated films, and I don't really give two shits about the soulless live action movies, since I can just not watch them.
There are already more movies in theaters than I have the time or money to see, and the ones that show up tend to be the kind that benefits from a big screen.
There are a ton of smaller movies across a variety of genres that I can get at through various streaming services, or rent through Amazon Prime.
So again, while i respect the arguments about how indies have to just show their films on streaming platforms instead of in theaters, and how Disney is our corporate overlord, on a personal level, as a big fan of movies, things pretty much couldn't be better. I have a huge variety of great stuff to choose from that covers the entire spectrum of my tastes. And if we have a slow year, I have access to a massive film backlog stretching back half a century.
"Things are great, but what if they were even greater?" is not super compelling.
Things look great to you because you enjoy the one particular flavour that Disney has, it is a popular flavour, but it shouldnt be the ONLY flavour that exists anywhere, and Disney, as the evil monster that it is, has and will continue to destroy anything that isnt Disney.
I understand you like Disney, but "Fuck you got mine" is as good an answer as "capitalists will capitalist".
I watched a whole lot of movies last year. The vast majority of them were not MCU, Star Wars, or animated Disney flicks.
If you genuinely think that there aren't any movies out there that aren't Disney's "particular flavor," I would suggest that maybe you're not looking very hard.
I mean, that's fair
but also
I legit went to an AMC this summer and there were two screens out of the twelve showing something that wasn't a Disney owned property.
Obviously I didn't have to look very hard to find something that wasn't Disney, it was right there on two screens. And it wasn't a major release week, or anything. But it's hard not to be a little aghast at that. I don't think that's unreasonable even if Disney's movies are (almost) all broadly appealing.
Marvel movies are the dominant entertainment force on the planet. They’re ubiquitous. They make all the money. They’ve garnered critical acclaim and wild financial success.
The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?
"I don't like it because other people do" is very compelling.
And the need to bring it up as every single fault in the modern American movie industry is also pathological. Also calling the audience idiots/culturally bankrupt for liking it, kind of gets old after a while.
Except no one is arguing that. Despite how many times people keep pretending like that's the reason people criticize the MCU films.
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of that quote was that no one has to defend the MCU. That criticisms of them are not a personal attack or just an internet hottake or hating something because it's mainstream or whatever else.
Which circles back to the entire point: People aren't criticizing the MCU because they are popular. They are criticizing them on what they see as their faults, as articulated in many posts in this thread already. Those criticisms aren't some contrarian internet hottake.
And people disagree with those criticisms, which is the point of discussion.
Only one side is calling the other "pathological" here. Which is kind of what I'm saying, since pathological means we're absolutely unable to control our actions and just don't know any better.
Except that's not the discussion because you claimed those people's argument was "I don't like it because other people do". You can't have a discussion if you are claiming the other side only disagrees with you because they hate popular things and not because of all the reasons they actually gave.
I legit went to an AMC this summer and there were two screens out of the twelve showing something that wasn't a Disney owned property.
Obviously I didn't have to look very hard to find something that wasn't Disney, it was right there on two screens. And it wasn't a major release week, or anything. But it's hard not to be a little aghast at that. I don't think that's unreasonable even if Disney's movies are (almost) all broadly appealing.
That touches on part of the issue: You went to an AMC. The big conglomerates are the ones running the vast majority of the theaters in the US, because theaters, especially the smaller ones, aren't doing so hot. Movies are competing against every other form of entertainment out there (video games, sports, etc.), and most people are content to just sit in the house and watch Netflix, and you kinda have to be a big corporation that sells the sizzle to stay in business.
I mean, I have no problems finding non-Disney-conglomerate movies to see in the Bay Area... but the Bay Area cultivates the smaller theaters that show a larger variety of movies. And even then, about half of the ones I know of have closed since I moved out here. I can't imagine what the situation is like in smaller metro areas.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
+3
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I get all of the arguments about the Deplorable State of Cinema Today, and in an academic sense, I more or less agree. However, on a personal level:
I really like Marvel movies. They're a lot of fun, and the MCU is neat.
Star Wars movies, and the property in general, is in much better shape now than it was 20 years ago.
Pixar and Disney are making consistently good animated films, and I don't really give two shits about the soulless live action movies, since I can just not watch them.
There are already more movies in theaters than I have the time or money to see, and the ones that show up tend to be the kind that benefits from a big screen.
There are a ton of smaller movies across a variety of genres that I can get at through various streaming services, or rent through Amazon Prime.
So again, while i respect the arguments about how indies have to just show their films on streaming platforms instead of in theaters, and how Disney is our corporate overlord, on a personal level, as a big fan of movies, things pretty much couldn't be better. I have a huge variety of great stuff to choose from that covers the entire spectrum of my tastes. And if we have a slow year, I have access to a massive film backlog stretching back half a century.
"Things are great, but what if they were even greater?" is not super compelling.
Things look great to you because you enjoy the one particular flavour that Disney has, it is a popular flavour, but it shouldnt be the ONLY flavour that exists anywhere, and Disney, as the evil monster that it is, has and will continue to destroy anything that isnt Disney.
I understand you like Disney, but "Fuck you got mine" is as good an answer as "capitalists will capitalist".
I watched a whole lot of movies last year. The vast majority of them were not MCU, Star Wars, or animated Disney flicks.
If you genuinely think that there aren't any movies out there that aren't Disney's "particular flavor," I would suggest that maybe you're not looking very hard.
I mean, that's fair
but also
I legit went to an AMC this summer and there were two screens out of the twelve showing something that wasn't a Disney owned property.
Obviously I didn't have to look very hard to find something that wasn't Disney, it was right there on two screens. And it wasn't a major release week, or anything. But it's hard not to be a little aghast at that. I don't think that's unreasonable even if Disney's movies are (almost) all broadly appealing.
The closest big chain theater to me is a Regal that currently has 17 movies playing. Only 1 of those - Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - is a Disney film.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
MWO: Adamski
+3
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
I liked Dark Fate, it's about on par with 3, nowhere near 1 & 2. I liked Linda and Arnold in it, new leads and the Rev9 were cool.
The bad?
Killing John, of course, and not even using Edward Furlong, having to kill the young one was even stupider. Stupid de-aging CG.
The 'new' Dark Future is pale compared to T1 or even 2's. Where's the darkness? The plasma weapons? Why is everyone using machine guns!? It has no bite.
The intro of the terminators rising out of the water was really cool, and more like what I expected, but that was it.
They really should go back to basics, stop making super unkillable terminators that keep one-upping the last.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
This assumes the hand of the invisible hand of the free market is working perfectly. Do I even need to snort at this idea? Especially in the context of the size of an entity like Disney or the limitations of the international and Chinese markets?
shryke on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I’m hard-pressed to consider the MCU an artistic movement purely on the basis that all of the movies are made by one company and overseen by one person. The rise of modern superhero movies could be called a movement, but that encompasses a lot more than just Marvel.
Anyway when the constant response to criticisms boils down to “you’re just a hater” the conversation gets pretty frustrating.
I get all of the arguments about the Deplorable State of Cinema Today, and in an academic sense, I more or less agree. However, on a personal level:
I really like Marvel movies. They're a lot of fun, and the MCU is neat.
Star Wars movies, and the property in general, is in much better shape now than it was 20 years ago.
Pixar and Disney are making consistently good animated films, and I don't really give two shits about the soulless live action movies, since I can just not watch them.
There are already more movies in theaters than I have the time or money to see, and the ones that show up tend to be the kind that benefits from a big screen.
There are a ton of smaller movies across a variety of genres that I can get at through various streaming services, or rent through Amazon Prime.
So again, while i respect the arguments about how indies have to just show their films on streaming platforms instead of in theaters, and how Disney is our corporate overlord, on a personal level, as a big fan of movies, things pretty much couldn't be better. I have a huge variety of great stuff to choose from that covers the entire spectrum of my tastes. And if we have a slow year, I have access to a massive film backlog stretching back half a century.
"Things are great, but what if they were even greater?" is not super compelling.
Things look great to you because you enjoy the one particular flavour that Disney has, it is a popular flavour, but it shouldnt be the ONLY flavour that exists anywhere, and Disney, as the evil monster that it is, has and will continue to destroy anything that isnt Disney.
I understand you like Disney, but "Fuck you got mine" is as good an answer as "capitalists will capitalist".
I watched a whole lot of movies last year. The vast majority of them were not MCU, Star Wars, or animated Disney flicks.
If you genuinely think that there aren't any movies out there that aren't Disney's "particular flavor," I would suggest that maybe you're not looking very hard.
I mean, that's fair
but also
I legit went to an AMC this summer and there were two screens out of the twelve showing something that wasn't a Disney owned property.
Obviously I didn't have to look very hard to find something that wasn't Disney, it was right there on two screens. And it wasn't a major release week, or anything. But it's hard not to be a little aghast at that. I don't think that's unreasonable even if Disney's movies are (almost) all broadly appealing.
The closest big chain theater to me is a Regal that currently has 17 movies playing. Only 1 of those - Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - is a Disney film.
Anecdotal evidence is far from compelling.
Cool? I'm not putting forward an evidentiary argument, I was comparing a personal experience to a personal experience.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Except there's a bunch of people being artistically creative. Davinci wasn't not doing art because the medici family was paying for it.
The marvel movies are an artistic pursuit, a rather popular one.
The problem is in fact that most people enjoy them. That's what's allowed them to amass the funds to do the dirty business shit. Like a bunch of the mergers in the past few years just flat shouldn't have happened. As well Disney's power to control the theaters it plays in should be curtailed.
The problem is that they keep funding art that tons of people like while also doing a bunch of dirty business shit. that business shit is what's slowly making it so only they are funding wide scale art.
Trying to convince people to not like the art is a fools errand. Directly addressing the business capabilities of the entity funding that art is actually effective.
Saying shit like "it's not cinema" is some high brow fart huffing. It's insulting to the artists doing work on those movies, and belies the fact that you barely consider the things art and can't notice that it's an artistic movement that reaches back decades.
Yes Disney as a business entity is very bad, people have known that for quite some time, but for some reason no one does anything about it. Kinda like the medici. Doesn't mean that the works of davinci weren't frescoes and paintings. Just means they were frescoes and paintings paid for by assholes. As has most widely notable art been for millennia.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Except there's a bunch of people being artistically creative. Davinci wasn't not doing art because the medici family was paying for it.
The marvel movies are an artistic pursuit, a rather popular one.
The problem is in fact that most people enjoy them. That's what's allowed them to amass the funds to do the dirty business shit. Like a bunch of the mergers in the past few years just flat shouldn't have happened. As well Disney's power to control the theaters it plays in should be curtailed.
The problem is that they keep funding art that tons of people like while also doing a bunch of dirty business shit. that business shit is what's slowly making it so only they are funding wide scale art.
Trying to convince people to not like the art is a fools errand. Directly addressing the business capabilities of the entity funding that art is actually effective.
Saying shit like "it's not cinema" is some high brow fart huffing. It's insulting to the artists doing work on those movies, and belies the fact that you barely consider the things art and can't notice that it's an artistic movement that reaches back decades.
Yes Disney as a business entity is very bad, people have known that for quite some time, but for some reason no one does anything about it. Kinda like the medici. Doesn't mean that the works of davinci weren't frescoes and paintings. Just means they were frescoes and paintings paid for by assholes. As has most widely notable art been for millennia.
But no one is trying to do anything like what you are talking about. Honestly, I have no fucking idea where you get the idea that this is about trying to convince people to not like a thing. It's about the way the size and reach of not just the Disney company as an entity but the type of films being made crowds out other kinds of art.
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
I went to a Blade Runner / Running Man double bill on Saturday and it was awesome, was in a cool old Victorian theatre, you could buy a big tray of really good nachos for like three quid, we went to the Picture House Social afterwards for some beers... Great evening out. And I forgot how much I love both those movies!
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Except there's a bunch of people being artistically creative. Davinci wasn't not doing art because the medici family was paying for it.
The marvel movies are an artistic pursuit, a rather popular one.
The problem is in fact that most people enjoy them. That's what's allowed them to amass the funds to do the dirty business shit. Like a bunch of the mergers in the past few years just flat shouldn't have happened. As well Disney's power to control the theaters it plays in should be curtailed.
The problem is that they keep funding art that tons of people like while also doing a bunch of dirty business shit. that business shit is what's slowly making it so only they are funding wide scale art.
Trying to convince people to not like the art is a fools errand. Directly addressing the business capabilities of the entity funding that art is actually effective.
Saying shit like "it's not cinema" is some high brow fart huffing. It's insulting to the artists doing work on those movies, and belies the fact that you barely consider the things art and can't notice that it's an artistic movement that reaches back decades.
Yes Disney as a business entity is very bad, people have known that for quite some time, but for some reason no one does anything about it. Kinda like the medici. Doesn't mean that the works of davinci weren't frescoes and paintings. Just means they were frescoes and paintings paid for by assholes. As has most widely notable art been for millennia.
But no one is trying to do anything like what you are talking about. Honestly, I have no fucking idea where you get the idea that this is about trying to convince people to not like a thing. It's about the way the size and reach of not just the Disney company as an entity but the type of films being made crowds out other kinds of art.
Would you file the fast and the furious, or harry potter universe under the same consideration?
It's the cinematic universe that spans multiple films/franchises the problem, or is ot specifically just Disney doing it?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
Disney's cultural monopoly is really impressive. Not that they accomplished it, but they they accomplished it and remain so beloved. They can full on display this greed and gluttony in commercials for Wreck-It Ralph and have it come across as charming.
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Except there's a bunch of people being artistically creative. Davinci wasn't not doing art because the medici family was paying for it.
The marvel movies are an artistic pursuit, a rather popular one.
The problem is in fact that most people enjoy them. That's what's allowed them to amass the funds to do the dirty business shit. Like a bunch of the mergers in the past few years just flat shouldn't have happened. As well Disney's power to control the theaters it plays in should be curtailed.
The problem is that they keep funding art that tons of people like while also doing a bunch of dirty business shit. that business shit is what's slowly making it so only they are funding wide scale art.
Trying to convince people to not like the art is a fools errand. Directly addressing the business capabilities of the entity funding that art is actually effective.
Saying shit like "it's not cinema" is some high brow fart huffing. It's insulting to the artists doing work on those movies, and belies the fact that you barely consider the things art and can't notice that it's an artistic movement that reaches back decades.
Yes Disney as a business entity is very bad, people have known that for quite some time, but for some reason no one does anything about it. Kinda like the medici. Doesn't mean that the works of davinci weren't frescoes and paintings. Just means they were frescoes and paintings paid for by assholes. As has most widely notable art been for millennia.
But no one is trying to do anything like what you are talking about. Honestly, I have no fucking idea where you get the idea that this is about trying to convince people to not like a thing. It's about the way the size and reach of not just the Disney company as an entity but the type of films being made crowds out other kinds of art.
Would you file the fast and the furious, or harry potter universe under the same consideration?
It's the cinematic universe that spans multiple films/franchises the problem, or is ot specifically just Disney doing it?
I mean, how many complaints and jokes have been made, for years and years now, about every studio trying to turn every property into a multi-film franchise?
I’m hard-pressed to consider the MCU an artistic movement purely on the basis that all of the movies are made by one company and overseen by one person. The rise of modern superhero movies could be called a movement, but that encompasses a lot more than just Marvel.
Anyway when the constant response to criticisms boils down to “you’re just a hater” the conversation gets pretty frustrating.
The MCU is art, thus an artistic movement, you don't have to like to accept this. Because movies are an art form. Except the main target of these conversations isn't Disney, that takes a backseat to Marvel which is a small subsection within their film division. Which has 3 movies a year. Disney makes more than 3 movies a year and many are blockbuster franchises. Star Wars, for instance.
Jaws (in the past), Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator, Star Trek, Jurassic Park franchises keep going strong and no-one has a bone to pick with them. Terminator is on its 6th film, Pirates' 6th film is going to be a reboot, Jaws got 4, Trek's on its 12th, F & F are on its 8th and it had a spin-off, Jurassic Park's on its 6th. The only franchise there who aren't adaptions are Trek and Fast and Furious, neither of which are high art. And yet Marty hasn't said a word about disparaging those as are art forms, in fact he boosted the director who started two of them!
I get all of the arguments about the Deplorable State of Cinema Today, and in an academic sense, I more or less agree. However, on a personal level:
I really like Marvel movies. They're a lot of fun, and the MCU is neat.
Star Wars movies, and the property in general, is in much better shape now than it was 20 years ago.
Pixar and Disney are making consistently good animated films, and I don't really give two shits about the soulless live action movies, since I can just not watch them.
There are already more movies in theaters than I have the time or money to see, and the ones that show up tend to be the kind that benefits from a big screen.
There are a ton of smaller movies across a variety of genres that I can get at through various streaming services, or rent through Amazon Prime.
So again, while i respect the arguments about how indies have to just show their films on streaming platforms instead of in theaters, and how Disney is our corporate overlord, on a personal level, as a big fan of movies, things pretty much couldn't be better. I have a huge variety of great stuff to choose from that covers the entire spectrum of my tastes. And if we have a slow year, I have access to a massive film backlog stretching back half a century.
"Things are great, but what if they were even greater?" is not super compelling.
Things look great to you because you enjoy the one particular flavour that Disney has, it is a popular flavour, but it shouldnt be the ONLY flavour that exists anywhere, and Disney, as the evil monster that it is, has and will continue to destroy anything that isnt Disney.
I understand you like Disney, but "Fuck you got mine" is as good an answer as "capitalists will capitalist".
I watched a whole lot of movies last year. The vast majority of them were not MCU, Star Wars, or animated Disney flicks.
If you genuinely think that there aren't any movies out there that aren't Disney's "particular flavor," I would suggest that maybe you're not looking very hard.
I mean, that's fair
but also
I legit went to an AMC this summer and there were two screens out of the twelve showing something that wasn't a Disney owned property.
Obviously I didn't have to look very hard to find something that wasn't Disney, it was right there on two screens. And it wasn't a major release week, or anything. But it's hard not to be a little aghast at that. I don't think that's unreasonable even if Disney's movies are (almost) all broadly appealing.
That's also fair! I would argue, however, that going to a theater at the peak of action blockbuster season is maybe not the best data point.
I think it's also fair to say that while there are more indie movies out than there used to be (and so pretty much by definition you have more non-Disney options than ever), maybe it's harder to find them in a theater? I live in a pretty metro-y area, so in the event there's a more obscure movie that I really want to see, I can probably find it. But generally i'm limited by time and money, in which case waiting for it on Netflix or renting it on Prime is a viable alternative for me.
Really, I think there are a bunch of different complaints, here, which are all distinct:
- As a matter of market share, Disney owns more shit than ever. Which is true, and arguably bad for the industry in a long term sense, but doesn't directly limit what you can watch now.
- Theaters are tending to show fewer small movies in favor of more big budget studio stuff. This is a legit complaint, it's just not one that I personally am bothered by, because most of the stuff I really want to see in a theater is the big budget stuff; the rest i'm content to watch at home. I'm more likely to find that, when I have a chance to hit a theater, there are lots of things I want to watch and no time to see them all. (I'm really sad I didn't see Midsommar in theaters, because it was fucking gorgeous.)
- Disney's market share means there's less indie stuff being produced. This is the one that, based on some data posted earlier, seems objectively false. There are hordes of indie movies being made, they're just increasingly shown in less traditional venues, like the various streaming services.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think a market where increasingly you go to theaters to see Disney stuff and everything else exists largely within streaming services is pretty anti consumer and well on its way to a monoculture.
Hey, nobody complains about the Jaws franchise. Even Michael Caine has complimentary things to say about the house it got him.
I am fucking shocked Jaws hasn't been rebooted/reimagined/gotten another sequel. Senior Spielbergo must have some serious dirt on the decision makers at Universal.
"Do not allow the media you love to become so much a part of you that critique of it becomes a critique of you."
Don't allow your ability to critique shit lead you to believe your critique is anything, but a subjective opinion.
Doesn't matter how well developed your critique is, or how much effort you put into it, or how smart you are. If the general public likes a thing you think is shit screaming about how much shit it is definitely isn't gonna convince everyone it's shit. Likely it's gonna do the opposite. Insisting people are dumb or insecure because they don't agree with your critique is also not gonna get you any accolades.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
This assumes the hand of the invisible hand of the free market is working perfectly. Do I even need to snort at this idea? Especially in the context of the size of an entity like Disney or the limitations of the international and Chinese markets?
So all the independent art house theatres are dying out because.... People really Want to go spend a bunch of money to watch an old movie in a rundown theatre but disney has the goose stepping mouse squad Frog march families into the multiplex to watch their latest princess movie?
The invisible hand doesnt have to be immaculately perfect, but there are enough market forces at play that you cant pretend that an art house in every neighborhood Or even every metro area is a viable business.
Posts
"The need for the MCU to be beloved by everyone, to win all the Oscars, to be approved of by the old masters, to be protected from all criticism, is pathological. When will it be enough?"
is a quote that does not say "I don't like it because other people do". It's a quote that says "Maybe it's ok if people criticize the MCU. Maybe you don't have to defend it from all criticism.".
Again, no one is making the argument you are claiming. The whole idea that people dislike the MCU because it's popular is farcical. There's been plenty of critiques of the MCU both as individual films, as a franchise and as a business phenomenon over the past several pages. They are still not making that argument.
Okay but who's in this thread screaming that all the Disney Co. films are bad?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Predator is one of my all time favorite movie scores, I put it up there with Conan the Barbarian and Gladitor. The man has been making fantastic movie music for decades and, like you, I'm always excited when I see his name show up.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
So the quote doesn't make any sense because we've already put the movies through the ringer, so why the appeal to emotion about not loving the films anymore?
And likening enjoying them or discussing it is now akin to mental illness or uncontrollable compulsiveness for reasons so obviously that was meant not in the exact words used.
What are you even talking about anymore?
The point of that quote was that no one has to defend the MCU. That criticisms of them are not a personal attack or just an internet hottake or hating something because it's mainstream or whatever else.
Which circles back to the entire point: People aren't criticizing the MCU because they are popular. They are criticizing them on what they see as their faults, as articulated in many posts in this thread already. Those criticisms aren't some contrarian internet hottake.
If we can just get like Tarantino to tweet that he liked Endgame can we just call it even and drop it?
And people disagree with those criticisms, which is the point of discussion. No one has to, but why should only one opinion be heard? Are we not allowed to say we like a film because you're tired of them?
Only one side is calling the other "pathological" here. Which is kind of what I'm saying, since pathological means we're absolutely unable to control our actions and just don't know any better.
That and this little gem:
"So yeah, a bunch of Producers and Accountants managed a great feat with the MCU, and made an incredibly popular entretainment product fit for mass consumption. Nothing more, and nothing less."
Except that's not the discussion because you claimed those people's argument was "I don't like it because other people do". You can't have a discussion if you are claiming the other side only disagrees with you because they hate popular things and not because of all the reasons they actually gave.
This isn't my first day on the internet.
I mean, that's fair
but also
I legit went to an AMC this summer and there were two screens out of the twelve showing something that wasn't a Disney owned property.
Obviously I didn't have to look very hard to find something that wasn't Disney, it was right there on two screens. And it wasn't a major release week, or anything. But it's hard not to be a little aghast at that. I don't think that's unreasonable even if Disney's movies are (almost) all broadly appealing.
What does this mean exactly?
I mean, I have no problems finding non-Disney-conglomerate movies to see in the Bay Area... but the Bay Area cultivates the smaller theaters that show a larger variety of movies. And even then, about half of the ones I know of have closed since I moved out here. I can't imagine what the situation is like in smaller metro areas.
I mean the discussion of marvel movies generally consists of 3 positions "hey that was fun", "that movie was objectively garbage", or "that movie and the entire MCU are a crime against cinema". They all get a bit more text put to them than those simplifications but that's about the 3 responses marvel films get. First ones fine, second one's tedious but is sometimes at least compelling to read to see what may have been weak points to the film you didn't notice or care about, the third is almost always unabashed fart huffing.
"I hate this cultural/artistic movement", is always a useless critique because it means any of your individual critiques of the artistic movement are suspect. You admitted up front you dislike the entire artistic movement. Like if you hate cubism I'm not gonna really give a shit about your critiques of cubist media. Country fans aren't gonna agree with my critiques of their preferred music because I've baseline hated the artistic movement since about 1999 and can only find the rare gem I can enjoy and most of it is just oldies I've not heard yet.
If your review of a marvel movie includes the note that it's just following the formula, or that it's like every other marvel film congratulations, you dislike the artistic movement. That's fine. I'm just not gonna care about your opinions on it because I like the artistic movement and things that folks in group 3 up there find to be a problem with the individual marvel movies are commonly in fact strong elements of the artistic movement that they don't like. After a certain point you not liking them is a greater indication that it's sticking within the confines of that particular artistic movement and likely more true to a form that it's appreciative audience is looking for.
All of this is beside the whole monopolistic practices issue which is the far more compelling issue here. Like outside of artistic credibility, which literally no one ever really gets to be the ultimate arbiter of, the monopolistic business practices surrounding Disney media is the major problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think anyone can credibly deny this is and has been a problem for quite some time. Trying to tie that discussion to a discussion of the artistic movement that is superhero media is dumb on its face because the artistic merits aren't actually important to this. There's a monopoly that's trying to verticalize the entertainment industry. As much as I love some of the media they've produced they might need to get a legal smack down so they stop strangling small scale theaters.
Basically:
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they are destroying artistic creativity, you're being a bit of a silly goose.
If you're saying Disney needs to be crushed because they have an alarming control of the global media framework then yeah that's a totally correct assessment of a monopolistic business that needs to be curtailed.
Or, you know, maybe it consists of more then those 3 strawmen.
I mean, just at the end there, part of the criticism of Disney's influence on the global media framework is that it leads to a strangling of artistic creativity.
This, in fact, would seem to be Scorsese's main point.
The closest big chain theater to me is a Regal that currently has 17 movies playing. Only 1 of those - Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - is a Disney film.
Anecdotal evidence is far from compelling.
Scorsese has it backwards and upside down.
Disney movies have broad appeal, which means they are more profitable both for Disney and for theatres that show them.
The theatres that try to show niche selections suffer financially.
Niche selections move to a more cost effective medium like streaming with smaller and more limited theatrical runs.
Scorsese thinks that if the Disney movies weren’t there, just as many people would be paying theatre prices for movies that by definition aren’t as appealing to as many people, he is upset that his movies can’t compete financially for theatre time with Disney, and views all alternatives as plebeian and lesser than his vaunted cinema.
People that truly love movies have more available than ever before with on demand streaming and not being reliant on the fickle tastes of a local art house or the multiplex conglomerate.
MWO: Adamski
The bad?
The 'new' Dark Future is pale compared to T1 or even 2's. Where's the darkness? The plasma weapons? Why is everyone using machine guns!? It has no bite.
The intro of the terminators rising out of the water was really cool, and more like what I expected, but that was it.
They really should go back to basics, stop making super unkillable terminators that keep one-upping the last.
I enjoyed the ending, though. Nice T1 call back.
This assumes the hand of the invisible hand of the free market is working perfectly. Do I even need to snort at this idea? Especially in the context of the size of an entity like Disney or the limitations of the international and Chinese markets?
Anyway when the constant response to criticisms boils down to “you’re just a hater” the conversation gets pretty frustrating.
Cool? I'm not putting forward an evidentiary argument, I was comparing a personal experience to a personal experience.
Except there's a bunch of people being artistically creative. Davinci wasn't not doing art because the medici family was paying for it.
The marvel movies are an artistic pursuit, a rather popular one.
The problem is in fact that most people enjoy them. That's what's allowed them to amass the funds to do the dirty business shit. Like a bunch of the mergers in the past few years just flat shouldn't have happened. As well Disney's power to control the theaters it plays in should be curtailed.
The problem is that they keep funding art that tons of people like while also doing a bunch of dirty business shit. that business shit is what's slowly making it so only they are funding wide scale art.
Trying to convince people to not like the art is a fools errand. Directly addressing the business capabilities of the entity funding that art is actually effective.
Saying shit like "it's not cinema" is some high brow fart huffing. It's insulting to the artists doing work on those movies, and belies the fact that you barely consider the things art and can't notice that it's an artistic movement that reaches back decades.
Yes Disney as a business entity is very bad, people have known that for quite some time, but for some reason no one does anything about it. Kinda like the medici. Doesn't mean that the works of davinci weren't frescoes and paintings. Just means they were frescoes and paintings paid for by assholes. As has most widely notable art been for millennia.
But no one is trying to do anything like what you are talking about. Honestly, I have no fucking idea where you get the idea that this is about trying to convince people to not like a thing. It's about the way the size and reach of not just the Disney company as an entity but the type of films being made crowds out other kinds of art.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
Would you file the fast and the furious, or harry potter universe under the same consideration?
It's the cinematic universe that spans multiple films/franchises the problem, or is ot specifically just Disney doing it?
"Shit I like is [art form], shit that I don't is [not art form] because [arbitrary reason]."
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
I mean, how many complaints and jokes have been made, for years and years now, about every studio trying to turn every property into a multi-film franchise?
The MCU is art, thus an artistic movement, you don't have to like to accept this. Because movies are an art form. Except the main target of these conversations isn't Disney, that takes a backseat to Marvel which is a small subsection within their film division. Which has 3 movies a year. Disney makes more than 3 movies a year and many are blockbuster franchises. Star Wars, for instance.
Jaws (in the past), Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator, Star Trek, Jurassic Park franchises keep going strong and no-one has a bone to pick with them. Terminator is on its 6th film, Pirates' 6th film is going to be a reboot, Jaws got 4, Trek's on its 12th, F & F are on its 8th and it had a spin-off, Jurassic Park's on its 6th. The only franchise there who aren't adaptions are Trek and Fast and Furious, neither of which are high art. And yet Marty hasn't said a word about disparaging those as are art forms, in fact he boosted the director who started two of them!
Not when Marvel comes up.
That's also fair! I would argue, however, that going to a theater at the peak of action blockbuster season is maybe not the best data point.
I think it's also fair to say that while there are more indie movies out than there used to be (and so pretty much by definition you have more non-Disney options than ever), maybe it's harder to find them in a theater? I live in a pretty metro-y area, so in the event there's a more obscure movie that I really want to see, I can probably find it. But generally i'm limited by time and money, in which case waiting for it on Netflix or renting it on Prime is a viable alternative for me.
Really, I think there are a bunch of different complaints, here, which are all distinct:
- As a matter of market share, Disney owns more shit than ever. Which is true, and arguably bad for the industry in a long term sense, but doesn't directly limit what you can watch now.
- Theaters are tending to show fewer small movies in favor of more big budget studio stuff. This is a legit complaint, it's just not one that I personally am bothered by, because most of the stuff I really want to see in a theater is the big budget stuff; the rest i'm content to watch at home. I'm more likely to find that, when I have a chance to hit a theater, there are lots of things I want to watch and no time to see them all. (I'm really sad I didn't see Midsommar in theaters, because it was fucking gorgeous.)
- Disney's market share means there's less indie stuff being produced. This is the one that, based on some data posted earlier, seems objectively false. There are hordes of indie movies being made, they're just increasingly shown in less traditional venues, like the various streaming services.
Yes.....when people are talking about Marvel they're not....talking about Jurassic Park?
Hey, nobody complains about the Jaws franchise. Even Michael Caine has complimentary things to say about the house it got him.
I am fucking shocked Jaws hasn't been rebooted/reimagined/gotten another sequel. Senior Spielbergo must have some serious dirt on the decision makers at Universal.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
So all the independent art house theatres are dying out because.... People really Want to go spend a bunch of money to watch an old movie in a rundown theatre but disney has the goose stepping mouse squad Frog march families into the multiplex to watch their latest princess movie?
The invisible hand doesnt have to be immaculately perfect, but there are enough market forces at play that you cant pretend that an art house in every neighborhood Or even every metro area is a viable business.
MWO: Adamski